A supporter of Egypt's former vice president Omar Suleiman uses a mobile phone near images of him during a gathering in Cairo. Reuters

It is fair to say that Omar Suleiman's bid to be Egypt's next
president is one of the most unexpected developments in post-Mubarak
Egypt. The last time anyone had seen or heard from Suleiman, he
appeared on Egyptian television and declared:

Citizens, in these difficult circumstances the country is going
through, the President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak has decided to leave his
position as president of the Republic, and has entrusted the Supreme
Council of the Armed Forces to administer the nation's affairs.

With those 41 words, Hosni Mubarak's almost three-decade rule came to
an ignominious end. Since then Omar Pasha has been a ghost. In the
giddy moments and considerable confusion after Mubarak's flight to Sharm
el Sheikh, there was an assumption that the intelligence chief and
two-week vice president would be taking a seat on the SCAF. It didn't
happen. He surfaced ever so briefly during Hosni Mubarak's trial. In a
pretrial investigation Suleiman reportedly told prosecutors that the
former president "knew of every shot fired" during the uprising. So
much for loyalty. In between and since, Suleiman was apparently holed
up in his home in Heliopolis. There were rumors in the late fall/early
winter of 2011 that he was back at work at the headquarters of the
General Intelligence Service, supporting his successor Major GeneralMourad Muwafie on the Israel-Palestinian file. This was perhaps wishful thinking among the felool--a sign that despite their electoral drubbing, a restoration was possible.

As of Sunday with the spectacle of Suleiman delivering his
presidential candidate registration papers (with more than three times
the 30,000 required signatures appended to his petition) to the High
Election Commission, the restoration seemed not just possible, but maybe
even imminent. Suleiman's decision to contest the presidency was a
dramatic twist in a drama filled week in which the Muslim Brotherhood's
number two and widely regarded to be the most powerful man in
post-Mubarak Egypt--Khairat al Shater--announced his own run for the
presidency and it was revealed that Salafist presidential candidate
Hazem Salah Abu Ismail's mother held an American passport. Yet Omar
Suleiman's emergence eclipsed all others. Immediately, the conjectures,
rumors, and theories attempting to make sense of al Shater's candidacy
gave way to intense speculation about who and what is behind Suleiman's
run.

There is any number of competing explanations for the return of Omar Pasha:

1. Let me caveat before I even begin. I don't think too many
Egyptians actually believe this one, but I've heard it and read it so it
deserves some attention. Here goes: Omar Suleiman is the Muslim
Brotherhood's solution to the Muslim Brotherhood's Muslim Brotherhood
problem. Not expecting the buzz saw of internal and
external criticism resulting from their nomination of Khairat al Shater
for president, the Brothers have struck some sort of deal with Suleiman,
calculating that the former intelligence chief and vice president will
win. This will relieve the Brothers of the responsibilities and risks
of controlling parliament, the presidency, and likely the government.
This argument hinges on the fact that during the uprising Suleiman
sought to negotiate with the Brotherhood's senior leadership rather than
the revolutionaries who instigated the demonstrations. Although
Suleiman's outreach to the Brothers during those eighteen days of
national upheaval demonstrated his inability to grasp the political
dynamics of that moment, it was a stunningly accurate assessment of
which group would likely play an influential role in Egypt's future. Be
that as it may, it seems unlikely that the Brotherhood would seek a
solution to their political problems through a deal with Suleiman. Why
enable even a partial restoration of the previous regime against which
the Brothers have been agitating since the 1950s, especially when power
seems to be well within the Islamists' grasp? Once more, the ferocious
rhetorical response to Suleiman's candidacy from Brotherhood figures
including Khairat al Shater who warned that the former vice president
was a "New Mubarak" suggests that the Brothers see Omar Pasha as a grave
threat to their political project. Things are not always what they
seem to be and there is a lot of "game playing" going on in Egypt as one
informant told me recently, but there is no reason to put any stock in
the MB-Omar nexus theory.

Rating: Nonsense

2. Omar Suleiman's candidacy represents the Egyptian
intelligence community's bid for supremacy in post-Mubarak Egypt. Not
only possible, but also entirely plausible. It is important to remember
that throughout the uprising and the transition, politics, street
demonstrations, and periodic spasms of violence have buffeted and taxed
the ministries of defense and interior, which are rivals anyway. Yet
the General Intelligence Service and Military Intelligence have, to the
extent that one can see into these opaque organizations, remained intact
and more than capable of carrying out their functions, which include
both domestic and foreign intelligence. In many ways, the uncertainty
of post-uprising Egypt is an environment in which intel operators
well-versed in the dark arts of manipulation, denial and deception, as
well as intimidation, thrive. The GIS has its own organizational
interests, views, and goals that may conflict with Egypt's other primary
political actors--the SCAF, parliament, Muslim Brotherhood, and the
revolutionary groups who may not command the authority and resources
necessary to challenge intel's bid for leadership.

What about the military intelligence? One of the great myths of
Egypt's transition is that the SCAF is in control of the country, its
ministries, and all of the branches of the military. Field Marshal
Tantawi et al certainly wanted Egyptians and observers to believe that.
Throughout the transition, however, the Ministry of Defense has found
itself at odds with the Ministry of Interior, demonstrated an inability
to compel civilian politicians to comply consistently with its orders,
and utterly failed to provide order, coherence, and leadership to the
transition. Under these circumstances, it is entirely possible that
Suleiman, his former employees at GIS, and the officers from his former
branch of service may believe now is a propitious moment for the
intelligence people to make a move and secure "the chair" for one of
their own, given how the SCAF has made a mess of things.

Rating: Possible and Entirely Plausible

3. It has become accepted wisdom in certain circles, particularly the
media, that Omar Suleiman is the SCAF's candidate. There is reason to
believe this. He is a military officer
with the rank of Lieutenant General. He saw combat in Yemen and Sinai
in both 1967 and 1973. As noted above, Suleiman's statements during the
Mubarak investigation/trial demonstrated some political deft and
deference to the SCAF, letting the military off the hook. This stood in
stark contrast to the former president who, in a deposition before
trial, claimed that the military was responsible for events in Egypt
beginning the evening of January 28, 2011 (the Day of Rage), which would
make Tantawi culpable for the more than 800 deaths during the ensuing
two weeks. Most importantly, if the SCAF wanted to put forward a
military figure with political experience, a potential reservoir of
popular support, and a history of keeping the Islamists in their place,
Omar Suleiman is their only choice.

Yet there is something too neat about the "Suleiman is the military's
candidate" theory. True, he is an officer, but he hasn't worn a
uniform in decades, was not in the chain of command, and was noticeably
left off the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, though that may be a
political asset at this point. There are also persistent, but never
verified, rumors that military officers targeted Suleiman in an
unsuccessful assassination attempt during the uprising. In addition,
why would the military want Omar Pasha? Ostensibly, he is one of them
and will protect their interests, but he seems to have a base of power
independent of the Ministry of Defense. The officers can't control
Suleiman and he likely has a file on everyone in uniform from colonel to
the Field Marshal. Mubarak was more dependent on the military than
many suspected and acted that way, working hard to ensure their senior
command's parochial concerns like the flow of aid from the United States
and core interests in stability and the military's place in Egypt's
political system. As much as the NDP became the vehicle for the
Mubaraks and their immediate cronies, it was, according to one of
Mubarak's top lieutenants, "a circus." It sounds cliché, but the
military is the backbone of the regime--the political system that was
founded in the 1950s after the Free Officers' coup.

Finally, if the fix was in for a military officer to fill the
presidency, why did the military wait so long before Suleiman was put
forward? Likely because he is not their candidate. Ahmed
Shafiq--Mubarak's last prime minister and a former air force officer is
more likely the military's preferred candidate.

Rating: Plausible, but not as much as everyone thinks

So why is Omar Suleiman running? Perhaps there is no better
explanation than blind ambition and opportunism. Suleiman is somewhat
different than the caricatures of him. For example, he is more
thoughtful on foreign policy than one might suspect, but unless he had a
change of heart over the last 15 months, he is hardly a progressive on
domestic politics. He was, in part, responsible for Egypt's alleged
stability during 18 of Mubarak's 29 years 3 months, and 28 days in
power. Suleiman, no doubt, believes that he can return stability and
security to Egypt's streets, providing a critical component for an
economic recovery, but can he? No matter where they stand on the
important issues, it seems that many Egyptians have rejected Omar
Pasha's methods, which, if the uprising was any measure, proved to be
largely ineffective against millions of people who desperately wanted
change.

This article originally appeared at CFR.org, an Atlantic partner site.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

Even when they’re adopted, the children of the wealthy grow up to be just as well-off as their parents.

Lately, it seems that every new study about social mobility further corrodes the story Americans tell themselves about meritocracy; each one provides more evidence that comfortable lives are reserved for the winners of what sociologists call the birth lottery. But, recently, there have been suggestions that the birth lottery’s outcomes can be manipulated even after the fluttering ping-pong balls of inequality have been drawn.

What appears to matter—a lot—is environment, and that’s something that can be controlled. For example, one study out of Harvard found that moving poor families into better neighborhoods greatly increased the chances that children would escape poverty when they grew up.

While it’s well documentedthat the children of the wealthy tend to grow up to be wealthy, researchers are still at work on how and why that happens. Perhaps they grow up to be rich because they genetically inherit certain skills and preferences, such as a tendency to tuck away money into savings. Or perhaps it’s mostly because wealthier parents invest more in their children’s education and help them get well-paid jobs. Is it more nature, or more nurture?

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.